[Gendergap] Fwd: [Wiki-research-l] Join the inaugural Wiki Research Hackathon on November 9
FYI Begin forwarded message: From: Dario Taraborelli dtarabore...@wikimedia.org Date: October 25, 2013, 13:55:05 EDT To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-researc...@lists.wikimedia.org, A mailing list for the Analytics Team at WMF and everybody who has an interest in Wikipedia and analytics. analyt...@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Join the inaugural Wiki Research Hackathon on November 9 Reply-To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-researc...@lists.wikimedia.org Cross-posting the announcement from the Wikimedia Blog. The details of the event are on Meta and we're also creating meetup.com pages for the local events. Check them out and RSVP if you're planning to attend. Looking forward to see you on November 9! Dario, on behalf of the organizers Join the inaugural Wiki Research Hackathon on November 9 Last summer at Wikimania in Hong Kong, the annual global Wikimedia conference, we (a group of Wikipedia researchers) discussed how we could make wiki researchmore impactful. In our work in academia and on Wikimedia projects, we saw a host of missed opportunities to share ideas, hypotheses, code, and research methods. We set out to create a space to bring researchers together with Wikipedians and facilitate problem solving, discovery and innovation with the use of open data and open source tools. Labs2 (L2) aims to build this space, by providing infrastructure and venues for collaborative wiki research. Today we’re thrilled to announce the inaugural Wiki Research Hackathon – a global event hosted by Wikimedia Foundation researchers, academic researchers and Wikipedians from around the world on Saturday, November 9, 2013. What This hackathon is an opportunity for anyone interested in research on wikis, Wikipedia, and open collaboration to meet, share ideas, and work together. It is targeted at Wikipedia editors, students, researchers, coders and anyone interested in designing new tools, statistics and data visualization, and producing new knowledge about Wikimedia projects and their communities. The goal of this event is to: share knowledge about research tools and datasets (and how to use them) ask burning research questions (and learn how to answer them) get involved in ongoing research projects (or start new ones) design new data-driven apps and tools (or hack existing ones) Where (Locations are approximate) This hackathon will be held both as a series of local meetups (Perth, Mannheim, Oxford,Rio de Janeiro, Chicago, Minneapolis, San Francisco, Seattle, etc.) and virtual meetups (Asia/Oceania, Europe/Africa The Americas) for those who can’t make it to the local events. An IRC channel (#wikimedia-labsconnect) and a Google Hangout open throughout the day will allow attendees to connect online. How Interested attendees can sign up for the event on Meta-wiki. Local and virtual meetups are listed on theevent page. All you need to do is add your name to the list of participants for the event that makes sense for you. Who For any question about the event (including volunteering for a local meetup), you can reach us at w...@wikimedia.org or leave a message on the hackathon’s talk page on Meta-wiki. We look forward to seeing you on November 9. Aaron Halfaker, Wikimedia Foundation Jonathan Morgan, Wikimedia Foundation Morten Warncke-Wang, University of Minnesota Aaron Shaw, Northwestern University Dario Taraborelli, Wikimedia Foundation Taha Yasseri, Oxford University Henrique Andrade, Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list wiki-researc...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Seeking advice on how to talk to other lists about sex-issue.
On 10/25/2013 12:56 PM, Klein,Max wrote: Well when Markus released his research on-list, I applauded his innovative methods and techniques. I also wanted to remind that forcing this binary or trinary classification onto people is not something that the software is making us do, but rather the us inflicting our bias onto the database. At that point I received a dismissive answer that if I wanted to talk about the gendergap that I should this mailing list, and that my comments were off topic. Then another user responded saying that my comments were very much on topic, and that's where the conversation stopped. Hi Max, as you know in my study [1] I used given names, gendered honorifics, and the ratios of pronouns in biographies to guess gender [2]. However, beyond the difficulty of gender vs sex, and false binaries is the imperfectness of the techniques. For instance in my data [3], such as 10-anbo-1k [4] I report: Of 1000 entries: I guess that 163 are female, 809 are male and 28 are unknown. I think it is right to classify the 28 as unknown. Would the be characterized as intersexed in this scheme? I think that would be a mistake... [1]: http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/777 [2]: http://reagle.org/joseph/pelican/technology/guessing-the-gender-of-bibliographic-subjects.html [3]: http://reagle.org/joseph/2010/06/gender/results.html [4]: http://reagle.org/joseph/2010/06/gender/10-anbo-1k.html ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Seeking advice on how to talk to other lists about sex-issue.
I remember seeing something about this on Wikidata and just not having enough hours in the day to comment at the time. There are three issues being intermingled here: *Sex, which is a biological marker determined by primary and secondary sexual characteristics such as breasts, penises, uteruses, etc. As such, the sex category is mostly correct, but should add 'unknown'. *Sexual orientation, which identifies the manner in which the subject expresses their sexuality. This would include heterosexual, homosexual/lesbian/gay, transsexual, bisexual, asexual, pansexual, and a host of other variables. *Gender identity, which is almost always male or female, but is not directly related to sex as identified in the first definition. Thus gender identity includes males who identify as females, intersex who identify as male or female, females who identify as male, females who identify as female, males who identify as male. Elements of sexual orientation may also play a role, as in bisexuals who identify as both male and female, or as neither male nor female. It is important that assumptions not be made, particularly for sexual orientation or gender identity. Most notable people do not discuss their orientation or gender identity. I also would suggest that it be considered perfectly acceptable to leave those categories blank for the vast majority of subjects and include the response only where the subject has personally confirmed their sexual orientation or gender identity. Frankly, this is pretty much none of our business and is only notable where the subject says it is. Risker/Anne On 25 October 2013 13:30, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote: By the way, I started a proposal to change 'sex' to 'gender' back in May: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P21#Rename_.28en.29_label_.27sex.27-.3E.27gender.27 But so far virtually no one has commented on it. Ryan Kaldari On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.orgwrote: Hey Max, The sex property at Wikidata definitely needs to be changed. This has nothing to do with the gender gap. The terminology is simply wrong. Let's continue this conversation at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P21. Ryan Kaldari On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Klein,Max kle...@oclc.org wrote: Hello Gendergappians, I was recently chatting on Wikidata-l about the model that exists on Wikidata for classifying sex [1]. If you didn't know of Wikidata, people are supposed to be classified as Male, Female, or Intersex. I once did some research on the composition Wikidtata given that classification [2] then Markus Kroetzscher investigated linking personal names to sex using this data [3]. Well when Markus released his research on-list, I applauded his innovative methods and techniques. I also wanted to remind that forcing this binary or trinary classification onto people is not something that the software is making us do, but rather the us inflicting our bias onto the database. At that point I received a dismissive answer that if I wanted to talk about the gendergap that I should this mailing list, and that my comments were off topic. Then another user responded saying that my comments were very much on topic, and that's where the conversation stopped. I haven't wanted to continue the thread because of the emotional investment in what seems to be a fruitless debate. Although recently I was chatting to a friend of mine about my dissatisfaction who said something I really liked: basically since the categories are male, female, intersex, that means 1) you are talking about a person's gonads, not their gender identity, which means 2) applying that category to most historical figures should count as original research it's not like anybody's done a major interdisciplinary study to confirm the chromosomes of every historical figure we aren't even sure shakespeare was a real person. how in the world should we guess what medical conditions he had in conclusion, sex: male female intersex is utter nonsense I would like to send the point to the list, but am fearful that it will be muddied again in that this is gendergap issue not a wikidata one when I am really just trying to talk about classification schemes. Do you have any advice on whether a) I should re-engage the debate, and if so b) how to best deliver my sentiments? [1] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P21 [2] http://hangingtogether.org/?p=2877 [3] http://korrekt.org/page/Note:Sex_Distributions_in_Research Best, Maximilian Klein Wikipedian in Residence, OCLC +17074787023 ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Seeking advice on how to talk to other lists about sex-issue.
The attribute that is being assigned by property 21 on Wikidata (as it is actually being used) is not sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity. It is simply gender, and should be labeled as such. For the majority of people, we don't actually know for sure what their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity is (especially for historical figures), but we do know their gender, i.e. the role they assume within society. I really don't see why this is even controversial. Ryan Kaldari On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: I remember seeing something about this on Wikidata and just not having enough hours in the day to comment at the time. There are three issues being intermingled here: *Sex, which is a biological marker determined by primary and secondary sexual characteristics such as breasts, penises, uteruses, etc. As such, the sex category is mostly correct, but should add 'unknown'. *Sexual orientation, which identifies the manner in which the subject expresses their sexuality. This would include heterosexual, homosexual/lesbian/gay, transsexual, bisexual, asexual, pansexual, and a host of other variables. *Gender identity, which is almost always male or female, but is not directly related to sex as identified in the first definition. Thus gender identity includes males who identify as females, intersex who identify as male or female, females who identify as male, females who identify as female, males who identify as male. Elements of sexual orientation may also play a role, as in bisexuals who identify as both male and female, or as neither male nor female. It is important that assumptions not be made, particularly for sexual orientation or gender identity. Most notable people do not discuss their orientation or gender identity. I also would suggest that it be considered perfectly acceptable to leave those categories blank for the vast majority of subjects and include the response only where the subject has personally confirmed their sexual orientation or gender identity. Frankly, this is pretty much none of our business and is only notable where the subject says it is. Risker/Anne On 25 October 2013 13:30, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote: By the way, I started a proposal to change 'sex' to 'gender' back in May: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P21#Rename_.28en.29_label_.27sex.27-.3E.27gender.27 But so far virtually no one has commented on it. Ryan Kaldari On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.orgwrote: Hey Max, The sex property at Wikidata definitely needs to be changed. This has nothing to do with the gender gap. The terminology is simply wrong. Let's continue this conversation at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P21. Ryan Kaldari On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Klein,Max kle...@oclc.org wrote: Hello Gendergappians, I was recently chatting on Wikidata-l about the model that exists on Wikidata for classifying sex [1]. If you didn't know of Wikidata, people are supposed to be classified as Male, Female, or Intersex. I once did some research on the composition Wikidtata given that classification [2] then Markus Kroetzscher investigated linking personal names to sex using this data [3]. Well when Markus released his research on-list, I applauded his innovative methods and techniques. I also wanted to remind that forcing this binary or trinary classification onto people is not something that the software is making us do, but rather the us inflicting our bias onto the database. At that point I received a dismissive answer that if I wanted to talk about the gendergap that I should this mailing list, and that my comments were off topic. Then another user responded saying that my comments were very much on topic, and that's where the conversation stopped. I haven't wanted to continue the thread because of the emotional investment in what seems to be a fruitless debate. Although recently I was chatting to a friend of mine about my dissatisfaction who said something I really liked: basically since the categories are male, female, intersex, that means 1) you are talking about a person's gonads, not their gender identity, which means 2) applying that category to most historical figures should count as original research it's not like anybody's done a major interdisciplinary study to confirm the chromosomes of every historical figure we aren't even sure shakespeare was a real person. how in the world should we guess what medical conditions he had in conclusion, sex: male female intersex is utter nonsense I would like to send the point to the list, but am fearful that it will be muddied again in that this is gendergap issue not a wikidata one when I am really just trying to talk about classification schemes. Do you have any advice on whether a) I should re-engage the debate, and if so b) how to best deliver my
Re: [Gendergap] Measurable goals in all areas and gender/minority gap in particular
The conference workshops are sound fascinating and I would love to hear more about the talk you are giving on Mentoring. Having recently been looking to be adopted or mentored I am interested in ideas from the other side of the keyboard (so to speak). It seems that there has been lots of discussion about very important issues, reasons why change can't happen and not much actual, easy to identify,change. I have questions about value/buy-in from those in Wiki-world who have the power to say for example: The question of applicable, measurable goals has been discussed with the appropriate stakeholders, let us adopt this standard for any entity that requests funding. I say this recognizing the various and multiple issues that are at play in a multinational society. I am happy to facilitate conversation, write papers, examples, etc. but I would prefer to have the sense that the work won't be wasted. If I was doing this with a group that I could invite to a conference room - the first activity would be to identify a shortlist of previously identified challenges to, i.e. the funding process, establish priorities and since people from every level of involvement would be present, there would be someone who could provide immediate feedback on management's opinion. (I think that is one of the longest run-on sentences I have created in a long time.) I have found that work groups like this benefit most from representatives of every group that will be touched by the issues at hand, this promotes buy-in and has always resulted in a variety of outlooks, skill sets, and brilliant ideas. In the case of Wikipedia I would recommend that new editors are specifically invited to participate in discussions and given meaningful tasks and/or opportunities to assist. The saddest request I have ever seen is, Be kind to me, I'm new and I have no clear idea of what I am doing. An atmosphere of supreme kindness, tolerance and clarity of responses must be created-until those ideals become a way of life, improved levels of anything will not be able to move past hopeful conversations. I bow to the experience of the more experienced for information on best place to start or challenge to take on first. I am always optimistic and my experience has shown me that negative assumptions can be dismantled and consultative change can begin. Regards, Nora On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Sydney sydney.po...@gmail.com wrote: Awesome, Nora. At the Diversity Conference, there is going to be several sessions that touch on this topic. https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Diversity_Conference/Schedule I hope to find some more people interested in helping out among the people going to these sessions. In the mean time, I'm interested in hearing your ideas. Sydney Sent from my iPhone On Oct 25, 2013, at 14:31, trueself56 . truesel...@gmail.com wrote: I would be interested in doing more work in this area. If interested people would like to contact me directly or through the list, we can see what we know to be true. Of course, the assistance of Sydney and/or other experienced people will be needed to move *this *goal to an effective action state. Regards, Nora (Norawashere) ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Seeking advice on how to talk to other lists about sex-issue.
It's controversial because there are women who assumed a male role, but were definitely women in their personal life. So your definition there would be to assign them the male gender but the female sex. And I disagreewhat's being assigned there is sex, not gender. Risker On 25 October 2013 16:24, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote: The attribute that is being assigned by property 21 on Wikidata (as it is actually being used) is not sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity. It is simply gender, and should be labeled as such. For the majority of people, we don't actually know for sure what their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity is (especially for historical figures), but we do know their gender, i.e. the role they assume within society. I really don't see why this is even controversial. Ryan Kaldari On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: I remember seeing something about this on Wikidata and just not having enough hours in the day to comment at the time. There are three issues being intermingled here: *Sex, which is a biological marker determined by primary and secondary sexual characteristics such as breasts, penises, uteruses, etc. As such, the sex category is mostly correct, but should add 'unknown'. *Sexual orientation, which identifies the manner in which the subject expresses their sexuality. This would include heterosexual, homosexual/lesbian/gay, transsexual, bisexual, asexual, pansexual, and a host of other variables. *Gender identity, which is almost always male or female, but is not directly related to sex as identified in the first definition. Thus gender identity includes males who identify as females, intersex who identify as male or female, females who identify as male, females who identify as female, males who identify as male. Elements of sexual orientation may also play a role, as in bisexuals who identify as both male and female, or as neither male nor female. It is important that assumptions not be made, particularly for sexual orientation or gender identity. Most notable people do not discuss their orientation or gender identity. I also would suggest that it be considered perfectly acceptable to leave those categories blank for the vast majority of subjects and include the response only where the subject has personally confirmed their sexual orientation or gender identity. Frankly, this is pretty much none of our business and is only notable where the subject says it is. Risker/Anne On 25 October 2013 13:30, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote: By the way, I started a proposal to change 'sex' to 'gender' back in May: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P21#Rename_.28en.29_label_.27sex.27-.3E.27gender.27 But so far virtually no one has commented on it. Ryan Kaldari On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.orgwrote: Hey Max, The sex property at Wikidata definitely needs to be changed. This has nothing to do with the gender gap. The terminology is simply wrong. Let's continue this conversation at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P21. Ryan Kaldari On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Klein,Max kle...@oclc.org wrote: Hello Gendergappians, I was recently chatting on Wikidata-l about the model that exists on Wikidata for classifying sex [1]. If you didn't know of Wikidata, people are supposed to be classified as Male, Female, or Intersex. I once did some research on the composition Wikidtata given that classification [2] then Markus Kroetzscher investigated linking personal names to sex using this data [3]. Well when Markus released his research on-list, I applauded his innovative methods and techniques. I also wanted to remind that forcing this binary or trinary classification onto people is not something that the software is making us do, but rather the us inflicting our bias onto the database. At that point I received a dismissive answer that if I wanted to talk about the gendergap that I should this mailing list, and that my comments were off topic. Then another user responded saying that my comments were very much on topic, and that's where the conversation stopped. I haven't wanted to continue the thread because of the emotional investment in what seems to be a fruitless debate. Although recently I was chatting to a friend of mine about my dissatisfaction who said something I really liked: basically since the categories are male, female, intersex, that means 1) you are talking about a person's gonads, not their gender identity, which means 2) applying that category to most historical figures should count as original research it's not like anybody's done a major interdisciplinary study to confirm the chromosomes of every historical figure we aren't even sure shakespeare was a real person. how in the world should we guess what medical conditions he had in conclusion, sex:
